Download PDF | Constantine A. Panchenko - Orthodoxy and Islam in the Middle East_ The Seventh to the Sixteenth Centuries-Holy Trinity Publications (2021).
161 Pages
Foreword e are pleased to offer in this concise study a broad survey of the life of the Orthodox Christian communities in the Middle East from the emergence (advent) of Islam in the early seventh century through the following nine hundred years. For those of us living in the modern West, this will open up a world that to all practical purposes is unknown to us: a world where many forms of Christianity existed (and still exist) and where conflicts between different Islamic tribes and dynasties create a tableau of great complexity and many contrasts. The diligent reader will learn of overt persecution and martyrdom of Orthodox believers at the hands of both Muslims and pagans, together with suffering at the hands of the Latin Crusaders. But they will also see that this was not their constant reality and that in perhaps equal measure times of peaceful coexistence prevailed. Further, beyond these polar-ities of persecution and peace, attention is given to changes in the physical environment and other calamities such as plague and earthquake that were to bring about lasting changes in the life of the Church. In this respect, for all of us now living in a time of worldwide epidemic, the sufferings that are recounted here should put our own in perspective. Through all of these events and in the light of the fragility of the life of so many who lived through them, we can see that it is all the more a testament to God’s work in history that in our own time these communities still exist and flourish, perennially renewed by the life of Christ in His Church.
Through the kaleidoscope of this work the reader will gain a vision of some of the seminal tides of human history that shaped and continue to mold both the region of the Middle East and the wider world to which it ultimately belongs as the cradle of civilization. As such we hope it will shape the understanding not only of those engaged in formal academic studies but of a wider readership as well.
Holy Trinity Monastery, September 2020
The Arab Conquest: Christians in the Caliphate
The seventh century, the time of the Arab conquests, was the most dramatic landmark in the history of the Christian East. Boundaries between civilizations that had remained immutable for seven centuries were swept away within nine years. The global crisis of Late Antique 1 civilization— depopulation, deurbanization, the decline of the economy and culture, exacerbated by epidemics of the plague, and natural disasters in the sixth century— predestined the Byzantine Empire’s inability to resist the Arab invasion. Justinian’s ambitious reign (527–565 ad) had undermined the empire’s last strength. The short-lived success of the Persian conquests at the beginning of the seventh century exposed Byzantium’s political and military weakness. The Persian occupation struck a powerful blow to Greco-Roman culture and the Christian Church, leading to the breakdown of the administrative and economic structures of the Middle East. In the confrontation with Persia, the empire completely exhausted its military and economic resources. The spiritual unity of the state was undermined by schism in the Church, the confrontation between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism, 2 and the two centuries of futile attempts to overcome it. The Aramaic and Coptic East, the stronghold of Monophysitism, was oppressed by the authority of the basileus in Constantinople. The emperor Heraclius’s (575–641 ad) attempt to recon-cile the warring confessions on the basis of a compromise Monothelete 3 dogma only worsened the situation, pushing part of the Orthodox away from the emperor. As a result, the Muslims who invaded Palestine did not meet any serious resistance from the army or the population. Arab troops first crossed the Byzantine frontier in late 633; then, by 639, they had already conquered Syria and stood at the edge of the Anatolian Plateau; and in 642, the Byzantine army left Egypt. Byzantium lost half its territory and lands inhabited by millions of Christians; their holy places and the most famous monasteries and patriarchal sees all came under Islamic rule.
Heretics who were persecuted in Byzantium clearly preferred the authority of the Muslim caliphs, for whom all Christian confessions were equal. The Orthodox of the Middle East (“Melkites” 5 ) perceived the Muslim conquest far more negatively, but they were not exposed to special persecution by Arab authorities. It should be added that when the Monothelete heresy dominated in Constantinople, the Orthodox of Syria and Palestine were also in opposition to the Byzantine emperor. First of all, one can speak of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem (d. 637), to whom later tradition attributes a key role in shaping Muslim–Christian relations in the Caliphate, including the apocryphal “Pact of ʿUmar.”6 It should be recalled that the Muslim doctrine of the era of the “rightly guided caliphs” 7 and Umayyads was still in its formative stage and was very different from the classical Islam known to us, which took its current form only toward the beginning of the ninth century. Accordingly, the real status of non-Muslims in the Caliphate of the seventh and eighth centuries may have been very different from the legal constructs developed by jurists of the ʿAbbasid era (750–1258 ad). Nevertheless, even in its later, classical forms, the Muslim legal system had a relatively tolerant attitude toward “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews), as well as toward several other categories of non-Muslims. The Arabs gave their Christian subjects the status of dhimmis 8— people under the protection of Islam. Dhimmis enjoyed freedom of religion and general internal autonomy in exchange for political loyalty and the payment of a poll tax, the jizya (in reality, the jizya was as a rule paid collectively on behalf of the residents of a village or quarter). Christian communities in the Caliphate were ruled by their own ecclesiastical hierarchies, which held many of the prerogatives of secular authorities, in particular the right to collect taxes, conduct trials of coreligionists, and make decisions with regard to marriage and matters of property.
In the seventh and eighth centuries, Christians still made up the majority of the population in the lands of the Caliphate from Egypt to Iraq. At the same time, Islamization was a major concern for Christian communities. Islam, the religion of the victorious conquerors, had high prestige. Most often, Christians converted to Islam under the influence of social and economic pressure. The lower classes sought to get rid of the burden of the poll tax and wealthy people wanted to raise their status and succeed in society. Mixed marriages, 10 the children of whom according to sharia became Muslims, were one of the most significant factors in eroding Christian communities, especially during the first Islamic century. Other factors, including forcible conversion to Islam, extermination, and ethnic cleansing, were not typical for the era of the Caliphate. Birth rates among Muslims and Christians appear to have been comparable. In any case, at the beginning of the era of the Crusades (1096–1271 ad), Christians still accounted for about half the population in Syria and Egypt.
Because of their level of education, some dhimmis managed to obtain a high social position in the Caliphate. Non-Muslims had a strong position in trade and finance, practically monopolized the practice of medicine, and almost completely filled the ranks of the lower and middle levels of the administrative apparatus. Christian, including Orthodox, doctors and administrators were of great importance at the caliph’s court. Masterpieces of Arab architecture of the late seventh and early eighth centuries were created by Christian craftsmen according to Byzantine techniques. The Umayyad period (661–750 ad) is considered the last flowering of Hellenistic art in the Middle East. 12 The Russian Arabist N. A. Ivanov somewhat shockingly, but not without reason, described the Umayyad Caliphate as “an Eastern Christian society under the rule of Muslims.
The Fading Inertia of Byzantine Culture in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries
The Arabs had no experience managing a developed urban society and gladly made use of the services of former Byzantine officials in their tax administration. Before the eighth century, bureaucratic documents in Syria and Egypt were written in Greek. Part of the non-Muslim elite was closely associated with the ruling circles of the Caliphate. It is noteworthy that in contrast to the obvious presence of Jews and converts from a Jewish milieu in the entourage of Muhammad and the rightly guided caliphs, it was Christians who played a significant role under the Umayyads.
The governors (emirs) of provinces were almost completely independent. The caliph could change them, but he could not intervene in their affairs. This semi-autonomous status of the provinces ensured a maximal preservation of the traditional way of life and political stability. The system of tax collection and distribution of pay to soldiers were decentralized. The imperial center only received very little of the surplus revenue from the provinces. The old regional elites remained in place and the Arabs did not encroach on their authority, remaining content with collecting taxes.
Archaeological research in Palestine and Jordan in recent decades gives a picture of almost universal Christian presence in the cities of the Middle East in the seventh and eighth centuries, with Byzantine traditions of urban development, crafts, daily life, and culture remaining intact. Ecclesiastical organization and other forms of self-government were preserved in Christian communities. Churches were built and renovated and were decorated with mosaics almost indistinguishable from their Byzantine counterparts. The Arab conquest itself hardly left a material trace, and archaeologists have not found any destruction or fires. Several churches in Transjordan were consecrated in the second half of the 630s, right in the middle of the Muslim invasion. According to archaeological findings, there were fifty-six churches in the territory of modern Jordan until the second half of the eighth century and sometimes longer. Moreover, eight of them were constructed or decorated with mosaics during the Umayyad period.
The best preserved architectural monuments of Umayyad Christianity include Umm al-Jimal in northeastern Jordan where fourteen churches and two monasteries were active in the seventh century; two dozen churches and seven monasteries were close by. At the beginning of the seventh century, there were more than fifteen churches in Jerash (Gerasa), to which only one mosque was added in the Umayyad period. Many churches in northwest Jordan were rebuilt during the era of the Caliphate and continued to be used until the Mamluk era (1250–1517 ad). In the village of Samra near Jerash, the mosaics of three churches date back to the beginning of the eighth century. Hundreds of Christian funerary stelae with inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic have also survived. In Madaba, there are Greek inscriptions mentioning the bishops and construction activity up to 663. In Ramla, which was founded by Arab governors in 717 as the new capital of Palestine, the Christians built two churches.
Archaeological data about the relative prosperity of Christians is supported by the testimonies of Western pilgrims who visited the Holy Land —the bishops Arculf (c. 680), Willibald (720s), and to some extent Bernard (860s). They describe the ornate Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the golden lamps over the Lord’s Tomb, the golden cross crowning the Edicule, 18 and the churches and monasteries in the various holy places of Palestine, including Bethany, Mamre, the Ascension Mount, and the place of the Baptism in the Jordan, where later pilgrims no longer noticed any traces of a Christian presence.
Along with this, in the seventh and early eighth centuries, aspects of the decline of Middle Eastern Christian society are already noticeable. Many churches, monasteries, and villages—including seats of dioceses—ceased to exist, either after the devastating earthquake at the beginning of the seventh century or after the Persian or Arab invasion. In some cities, churches were abandoned or converted into mosques and commercial facilities. Thus, in Fahl (Pella), the capital of the Arab province of Palestine, the neglect of the churches contrasted with the prosperity of the rest of the city. The clearest features of degradation and extinction appeared along the borders of the desert. Under the Umayyads, population density plummeted in central Transjordan. Toward the end of the seventh century, villages in the Negev were abandoned, including Beersheba, Elusa, and Nessana, famous for its papyrus archives preserving Greek and Arabic documents, the last of which date to the 680s.
The Early Umayyads: Byzantium after Byzantium
The situation of Middle Eastern Orthodoxy under Arab rule was determined by a complex combination of internal and external factors, including the development of Muslim doctrine, the relationships between the Melkites and Byzantium and between the Byzantium and the Caliphate, as well as the struggle between various ethnoreligious groups in the Caliphate for influence in the Muslim administration.
The Arab conquerors tolerated all Abrahamic religions and Christian confessions equally. This contributed to the cultural rise of the Copts and Syrians and the final formation of the non-Chalcedonian churches in Egypt and Syria, which had previously been persecuted by the Byzantine authorities. At the same time, all the resources of the conquered lands were directed to the needs of the Muslim community and the Orthodox Church lost state support. In the first couple of decades after the Arab conquest of Byzantium’s eastern provinces, the Melkites of Syria and Egypt underwent a profound crisis. Church structures were in a state of almost complete collapse, with all three patriarchal thrones vacant.
The last Melkite patriarch of Alexandria, Peter, escaped from Egypt with the departing Byzantine troops. After Peter’s death in 654, a successor was not elected for him. With the arrival of the Arabs, the Monophysite Copts retal-iated for their long-term persecution by the Byzantine emperors. The Coptic patriarch Benjamin, who had long been hiding in the desert to escape persecution, solemnly returned to Alexandria. The Monophysites seized Orthodox churches and monasteries and some Egyptian Christian sects, including part of the Melkites, joined the Coptic Church. After the death of the last Melkite bishops, the rem-nant of the Orthodox community in Egypt was led by priests ordained in Syria who formally adhered to Monotheletism.
In Palestine, the patriarchal throne was vacant after the death of Sophronius in the spring of 637. A significant proportion of the bishops rejected Monothelete dogma and tried to rely on the support of Rome, the last stronghold of Orthodoxy, which opposed Monothelete Constantinople. The Pope of Rome was appointed from among the Palestinian bishops locum tenentes for the patriarchal see, who ruled the Palestinian church for the next three decades.
Continuity in the Patriarchate of Antioch was interrupted from approximately 609 to 611 and was not restored during the war with Persia, after which came the Monothelete troubles. In 639/640, however, Macedonius, a Monothelete, was ordained Patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, but he and his successors tried to direct the affairs of the Church of Antioch from Byzantium without taking the risk of appearing in Arab-controlled territory. That segment of the Melkites of Syria who shared Monothelete dogma obeyed the patriarch of Antioch residing in Constantinople. Those who remained faithful to Orthodoxy acknowledged the suprem-acy of the locum tenens of the patriarchal see in Jerusalem.
The coming of the Umayyad dynasty into power in the Caliphate in 661 was an important milestone in the political development of Muslim society, as it increasingly absorbed the heritage of the pre-Islamic empires of the region. The political center shifted from the oases of western Arabia to the zone of the urban civilization of the Fertile Crescent. Syria came to be the core of the state and the capital was transferred from Mecca to Damascus. The Islamic theocracy was transformed into an Arab monarchy based on the dominance of Arab tribes as a privileged military caste.
The first Umayyad caliph Muʿawiya (661–680) spent many years as governor of Syria before his accession to the throne. His time spent surrounded by Christians contributed to his broad religious tolerance. Middle Eastern Christian chroniclers preserved an exceptionally positive image of this ruler. Before assuming caliphal dignity, Muʿawiya had prayed at Golgotha and at the Tomb of the Theotokos in Jerusalem. The motives for these actions, which are contrary to the Muslim dogma denying the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, remain unclear, but it is evident that Muʿawiya sought to win the sympathy of Syrian Christians. In 679, at the expense of the treasury, he restored the Church of Edessa, which had been damaged by an earthquake (this unprecedented event remained, however, exceptional, even for Muʿawiya’s politics). The Maronite Chronicle of the 660s recounts a religious dispute between Jacobites and Monotheletes in 659 in the presence of Muʿawiya, which testifies to his interest in Christian dogma. 24 A characteristic example of the cultural syncretism of early Umayyad society is a Greek inscription from 662 of the Christian administrator of the town of Hamat Gader, south of Lake Tiberias, about the reconstruction of the complex of ther-mal baths, which mentions the Caliph Muʿawiya (whose Arabic title, amir al-mu’minin is given in Greek letters) with an image of the cross accompanying the text. 25 It has been suggested in scholarly literature that in Muʿawiya’s time the term al-mu’minun (“the believers”) indicated followers of all monotheistic religions and that Muʿawiya regarded himself as head of the entire multiethnic and multi-faith population of the Caliphate. It was only later that the Arab state took on a markedly Islamic character.
With the transfer of the political center of the state to Syria, the Arab rulers found themselves in a densely Christian environment. In Damascus, there formed an Orthodox center of influence, including a group of high-ranking Melkite officials who had a marked impact on the religious policy of the Caliphate. At the court of Muʿawiya several influential Christians were known, the most notable of whom was the Orthodox Sarjoun (Sergius) ibn Mansur, the caliph’s secretary for Syria and manager of his personal finances. 27 In the absence of Melkite patriarchs, leadership of the community was assumed by the Orthodox secular elite, led by Sarjoun. Around 668, Muʿawiya restored the throne of the Melkite patriarchs in Jerusalem; 28 however, even after that, Sarjoun’s influence at the caliph’s court—and thus also in the Melkite community—remained unquestioned.
Hagiographic tradition says that Sarjoun ibn Mansur was the father of the greatest Christian theologian and writer John of Damascus (676–748), who bore the family name Mansur. 29 Sarjoun himself is also sometimes considered in the literature to be son of the semilegendary governor of Damascus Mansur, who handed the city over to the Arab commander Khalid ibn alWalid in 636.30 Although sources do not offer clear evidence of kinship between Mansur and Sarjoun, it is sufficiently obvious that within the Orthodox community (as well as in other Christian ethnoreligious groups in the Caliphate) a hereditary quasi-aristocracy had formed that occupied prominent positions in the civil administration and church hierarchy.
During the period of Monothelete dominance in the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox of the Caliphate perceived the Byzantine emperors as heretics and the Arabs did not consider their Melkite subjects to be a Byzantine “fifth column.” The Russian scholar Vasily Bartold already drew attention to the fact that despite Muʿawiya’s frequent wars with Byzantium, the Middle Eastern Orthodox were not subject to any harassment. 31 However, the balance of power dramatically changed in 681 after the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, when Monotheletism was anathematized and religious unity between Byzantium and the Orthodox of Syria and Egypt was restored. The defeated Monothelete creed suddenly took on new life in the land of the Caliphate. A significant proportion of the Middle Eastern Aramaean Melkites continued to adhere to this belief. The Syro-Lebanese Monothelete community developed into the Maronite subethnicity, receiving its name, according to one version, from the name of its first spiritual center, the Monastery of St Maroun on the Orontes or, in another version, from Yuhanna Maroun, the legendary founder of the Maronite church organization at the turn of the seventh to the eighth century. During this period, there were repeated clashes between the Orthodox and the Maronites in various areas of Syria and Lebanon. Polemic with Maronite doctrine became one of the areas of Melkite theology in the eighth and ninth centuries. Thanks to the Byzantine– Arab peace treaty of 685, the Orthodox were able to win the authorities of the Caliphate over to their side and to use them in the fight against Monotheletism. Relying on Arab military force, Sarjoun ibn Mansur brought about the submission of the Syrian heretics. 32 In 745, Patriarch of Antioch Theophylact bar Qanbar, who enjoyed the support of the caliph Marwan, once more attempted military action. According to some authors, in 745, after a wave of Melkite–Maronite conflicts at the Monastery of St Maroun, Aleppo, and Manbij, the Maronites created an autonomous church headed by a patriarch. It was only later that the mythologized historiography of that community granted the laurels of “founding father” to Yuhanna Maroun.
Christians of various denominations actively fought for access to administrative positions to influence the caliphs. During the reign of the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (685–705), a Monophysite group led by Athanasius bar Gumoye from Edessa played a prominent role in the state. The caliph made Athanasius tutor and secretary to his younger brother ʿAbd al-ʿAziz, the governor of Egypt. For two decades, Athanasius governed the richest province on his behalf, collecting taxes and amassing an enormous fortune. For obvious reasons, Sarjoun ibn Mansur could not get along with a rival of such stature. After the death of ʿAbd al-ʿAziz around 704, when Athanasius returned to his homeland with a huge caravan of property, Sarjoun remarked to the caliph, “Bar Gumoye has ransacked all the cellars of Egypt.”34 ʿAbd alMalik contented himself with confiscating half of Athanasius’s wealth.
Athanasius’s example demonstrates the extent of the prosperity of the region’s Christian elite at the courts of the emirs in the Caliphate’s provinces. In Egypt, alongside influential Monophysites, Orthodox courtiers of ʿAbd alʿAziz are known to have received from him the right to build a church in Hulwan for their coreligionists. 35Although the patriarchal throne of Alexandria continued to be vacant, toward the end of the seventh century an Orthodox ecclesiastical organization with its bishops was somehow reconstituted in Egypt. Egyptian Melkites participated in church life in Byzantium: at the Sixth Council the Patriarchate of Alexandria was represented by the priest Peter, who signed the conciliar acts with the title “Vicar of the Apostolic See.” He also attended the Council in Trullo of 691 as a bishop.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق